The Evidence Of Faith’s Substance Answering Bill Nye: The Universe and All Life in it is Predicted by the Creation Model

February 8, 2014

By Ed Croteau

Isaiah 45:12 "I have made the earth, and created man on it. It was I – My hands that stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded."

I wonder if we like watching debates more to see if anyone ‘crashes and burns’. It’s a little like going to watch Nascar. It’s really boring by lap 50, if someone hasn’t hit the wall yet or we haven’t seen a 10-car pileup. So, an informal poll after the Tuesday night debate between Bill Nye, the ‘Science Guy’, and Ken Ham, CEO of ‘Answers in Genesis’, showed Nye won by a landslide (92%). What happened?

The question being examined in this debate was ‘Is Creation a viable model for Origins?’ Most reporters watching the debate thought Nye presented easy-to-understand scientific evidence supporting evolution while Ham provided no evidence for creation, relying only on the Bible.

What prompted Ken Ham to ask Nye to debate him was Bill Nye’s public statement that he felt he had a ‘moral responsibility to oppose the teaching of creationism’, because ‘creationism is completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe’, and we must teach only evolution to our country’s children because ‘we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future’.

Well, Doctor Charles Townes would have a different view on things. He is Professor of Physics at Caltech, the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics and the 2005 Templeton Prize for ‘Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities’ (by the way, only Townes, Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama have won both a Templeton Prize and a Nobel Prize). He believes the science he so ardently pursued all his life has proved a clear and rationale model for the God of the Bible: "I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge".

So, is there any scientific evidence for Dr. Townes rather ‘irrational’ claim that God exists based on the science he has built his career around? Yes, of course. In our Wednesday evening class, we studied in detail 15 major scientific evidences that support Creation as the most viable model for origins. Let’s look at three from astrophysics (origin of the universe), and one from microbiology (origin of life).

Evidence #1 = The Universe is now known to have a beginning in space, time and matter. It is not eternal. What model predicted this? Creation (Genesis 1:1), not evolution. As Dr. Robert Wilson, Professor of Physics at State Univ. of New York, the 1978 Nobel Prize winner, and agnostic, said: "Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis."

Evidence #2 = The Universe is known to have a measurable, precise rate of expansion (its not random). What model predicted this? Creation (Job 9:8-9, Psalm 104:1-2), not evolution. As the late scientist Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an agnostic, said: "The Hubble Law is one of the great discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis."

Evidence #3 = The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation convinced scientists the universe began as an explosive event at a moment in time and space, from nothing. What model predicted this? Creation (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 33:6,9), not evolution. As Dr. George Smoot, Professor of Physics at Univ. of California Berkeley, the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, and an agnostic, said: "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing."

Evidence #4 = The Specified Language in cellular DNA cannot possibly have originated from an unguided process of nonliving matter becoming alive and then mutating over billions of years by successive modifications. We know that information only comes from Intelligence. What model predicted this? Creation (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7, Psalm 139:13-16), not evolution. As Dr. Francis Crick, co-founder of DNA, and an atheist, said: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

On Sunday night (6:00pm – 8:00pm), February 16, at Abundant Life Baptist Church (414 SW Percels in Lees Summit), we will hold an Open Forum Q&A on why Biblical Creation is the most viable model for Origins, and not Evolution. Come, ask questions. The healthiest thing to do is talk things out together.

Ed Croteau is a resident of Lee’s Summit and hosts a weekly study in Lees Summit called "Faith: Substance and Evidence." He can be reached with your questions through the Lee’s Summit Tribune at Editor@lstribune.net.

Comments

Rob says:

February 15th, 2014 at 15:28

The Bible may seem to match scientific discoveries in some parts (which are often vague and could be attributed to a number of things) but it seems to be mistaken more.
It lists bats as birds. Jesus tells people not to wash their hands before meals. A global flood is impossible and there is no evidence to support that such a event ever occurred. Genesis has two separate creation orders. Also, it says plants existed before the sun. The Bible states that day and evening came before the sun. It describes the Earth as being flat. These are just a few examples.
Big Bang Theory does not make the claim that the universe came from nothing. The universe originated from a super dense point of matter. It makes no claims what came before.
In this article Mr. Crouton makes some bald assertions, quotes some "experts", but fails to provide any actual evidence. He presents common, yet dated and refuted creationist arguments with which a simple Google search can debunk.
He's counting on the people reading his article to already be believers who are set in their ways and won't actually do any of their own research. Don't fall prey to a intellectual predator.